Creaking DoorIIRC the rear fuselage and a fin (or tailplane ?) is displayed at IWM South Lambeth.
The rear fuselage and one engine were on display at IWM Lambeth a year or so ago, I don’t remember a fin or tailplane…
…and the engine was displayed upside-down. :confused:
Creaking Door‘Explosive decompression’ in an airliner lasting about two minutes…
…and this causing the aircraft to enter a screaming power dive!
Creaking DoorSadly, I think any gain in performance realised through removal of turrets would have been largely negated by an increase in bomb load, such was the urgency in destroying urban Germany.
With war-time thinking I have to agree that increasing the bombload would be the most likely reaction of Bomber Command…
…but the bombers would still be 1500lb lighter on the way home so would be flying faster and higher…and statistically this is when most would be shot down.
No Lanc or Hali was ever going to get anywhere near high enough, or fast enough, to evade the Luftwaffe, they were always going to be fairly easy prey.
It took time for the Luftwaffe to identify the target, the route and assemble large numbers of night-fighters from all over occupied Europe the real key is to cut down this time both on the way and back from the target.
Anyway, I cannot see Bomber Command allowing heavies to penetrate enemy defences almost blind.
Unfortunately that’s exactly what bomber Command did do for much of the war…most bombers never saw the fighter that shot them down and even if they did it didn’t save them. Of course there were many gunners who saw fighters in time to call for evasive action and some even managed to shoot-down or drive-off a fighter but these are surely in the minority.
I believe for much of the war Bomber Command still clung to the theory that flak was more dangerous than fighters, possibly based on the fact that more bombers returned with flak damage than with fighter damage, of course in reality most bombers attacked by fighters didn’t get back. Statistical evidence giving the wrong answer. And if flak was the greater danger what use were turrets and gunners anyway?
So, even with turrets removed, there would have been a need for rear/upward/downward observation points, to detect enemy fighters.
I agree about the need to keep a good lookout to the rear and below and personally I’d keep the rear turret and gunner. As for the rest of the crew some were underemployed for large portions of the operation, particularly the wireless operator and bomb aimer. Possibly these crew could help provide a better lookout to the rear and below?
Creaking DoorDon’t forget that the principal German nigthfighter the Bf 110G-4 was getting heavier and heavier while engine power remained the same…
…on the other hand the british bombers were further developed with more engine power (The Mk VI Halifax had Hercules 100 engines giving 1.800 hp per engine and a top speed of around 300 mph)…
Exactly, I think it is often overlooked how overworked the poor Bf110 was by this time, long-range tanks, draggy radar aerials, radar and operator, gun packs, ammunition and flame-damper exhausts.
Although it would always have a better maximum speed than the bombers cruising speed that would not necessarily be good enough.
Many years ago I wrote a simple simulation for my computer (BBC Model B – yes that long ago!) to show the effect of a modest speed increase and the chances of interception by a night-fighter.
Operating a ‘box’ on the ‘Himmelbett’ system the night-fighter would home onto the bomber flying at cruising speed and when it was within 100 metres it was judged to be within visual range and this was counted as a kill (there was no combat as such).
The odd lucky bomber would get through (usually those skimming the edge of the circular ‘box’) but the kill rate was still about 90% (this was for individual bombers flying through the box not a bomber stream).
When the cruising speed of the bomber was increased by about 30mph the number of interceptions dropped off to near zero. The night-fighter was still faster, was allowed to fly always at maximum speed, and always knew exactly where the bomber was (while it was in the box) and did not suffer any time delay in having this information relayed to it from a ground station but it still just couldn’t make an interception.
The margin of speed it had over the bomber was just not enough…
…and I’ve heard it said that if all the turrets were taken from a Lancaster it could cruise 50mph faster!
Creaking Door…there was a very unsual video on the other other night showing a test F-18 being ‘chased’ by an A-4 during bomb dropping tests- the A-4 got too close and the bomb took its port wing off!
You’ll mean this one then…incredible footage…and no fatalities!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aLRNQrfIXc
With regard to the eBay item I tend to side with Peter on this one; there is no real reason I can see to sell this photo apart from profit. It is a difficult one, and down to personal feeling really but that’s the way I see it.
Creaking Door…the nose turret could have been removed and faired over…
Yes, and the dorsal turret too.
Strip out all the redundant plumbing, the engine driven hydraulic pumps (originally one on each engine supplying power to one turret each) except leave two pumps to supply the tail turret (for redundancy in case of loss of one engine).
But then do you get c/g problems from taking out the heavy nose turret which means you might as well leave it there?
As far a centre-of-gravity for a Lancaster I’m sure the bombload could have been re-arranged to cope with any problems (the Halifax lost its nose turret without problems).
On a Lancaster the nose turret FN5 alone (without guns or ammunition) weighed 237lb (107kg) and the dorsal turret FN50 alone (without guns or ammunition) weighed 340lb (155kg) loaded with guns and ammunition it weighed 699lb (318kg)!
Working on a figure of 22lb (10kg) for each Browning 303 gun and 180lb (82kg) per 1000 rounds of ammunition per gun the FN5 nose turret should weigh about 641lb (291kg) loaded!
Not forgetting of course the gunner for the dorsal turret at about 180lb (82kg).
So a total weight for both turrets of about 1500lb (682kg)…plus a fair amount of drag…and all this had to be carried all the way to the target and in almost every case all the way back.
Without these turrets a Lancaster would fly higher and significantly faster and these were by far the best defences against night fighters. Alternatively some of this weight loss could be traded-off for better range, better bombload (an extra two 1000lb bombs to any target) or a combination of these.
Also when a Lancaster was lost only six crew would be lost or to put it another way a saving of maybe 7000 aircrew lives over the course of the war.
And, yes, I know there are some flaws in this argument but I’m happy to discuss it. 🙂
Creaking DoorJapan used un manned balloons to attack the West coastal areas of North America, the actual damage caused was small but it grabbed the headlines.
No. That’s exactly what it didn’t do…there was an almost total and successful news blackout about it…so successful that the Japanese gave up as they didn’t believe any of the balloons had reached America.
Creaking DoorThe Stuka used a siren on its wing…
Actually on it’s undercarriage…
…well that’s the nit-picking done…sensible post to follow…promise! 🙂
Creaking DoorThe shining of a light from the cockpit has nothing to do with the syncronization of the engines, as the engine sync as nothing to do with the actual position of the propblades. It has all to do with the RPM of the engines!
I think what JDK may be alluding to here is some form of stroboscopic affect that would allow engine RPM to be accurately matched, rather that any blade position consideration.
Creaking DoorThere was a version of the Halifax, Lancaster and Stirling without gun-turrets…
…it was called the de Havilland Mosquito! 😀
Creaking DoorI understand it he was brought back as they wanted to hand him over to Sweden and he had to be sent back because of him being a combatant and the Geneva Convention said so.
Quite correct.
Captain Alfredo Astiz was brought to the UK at the request of France and Sweden in connection with:
“the disappearance of Dagmar Ingrid Hagelin, a 17-yr old Argentine-born girl holding Swedish citizenship, and two French nuns, Alice Domon and Léonie Duquet, the three of them in 1977” (Wikipedia)
Due to his status as a POW the UK was unable to extradite him to France or Sweden, although he was questioned by British police but remained silent. France convicted him in his absence in 1990. He was repatriated to Argentina before the end of the Falklands War.
Creaking DoorJust because there was no scientific fact behind the theory of desynchronised engines and sound location doesn’t mean the German bomber crews wouldn’t still do it.
Bomber crews were a superstitious lot…did Bomber Command crews really think that pee-ing on the tailwheel would protect them…or more scientifically, that the ‘J-Switch’ would really throw-off German radar?
German crews in particular seemed to be ignorant of the level of Radar control of the British defences so why not let them believe that sound location was still important.
If it boosted their morale what harm would it do?
On the theory of multiple bombers with synchronised engines producing the effect it does seem to only concern German bombers. I’ve never heard it said about the hundreds of British bombers over a German target…or maybe I would have heard this theory if I’d been German?
Creaking DoorI suppose this depends on how you define the start and finish of the ‘war’ (or even if it was strictly a war as no declaration was made by either side).
In one of the supreme (and superb) ironies of the conflict the Royal Marines garrison captured on the Falklands were returned to Britain and promptly joined the Task Force that was despatched to liberate the islands. Unfortunately these Royal Marines were just beaten to Stanley by their traditional rivals, the Parachute Regiment.
I’m certain that Jeff Glover was the only British serviceman held in Argentina when the war ended (and this is probably the seed for the misreporting).
Creaking DoorWhy does an engine rotate in any direction at all? Surely the piston is just moving vertically so what causes an engine to rotate only one way?
The critical things are the valve timings and, most importantly, the ignition timing.
Basically the ignition, the spark, in each cylinder is ‘timed’ to happen before the piston reaches the top of the cylinder so that the combustion of the air-fuel mixture develops to produce the best possible pressure on the piston after it has started moving back down the cylinder.
The faster the engine turns the earlier this ignition spark has to take place; this is the ignition ‘advance’. I’m not sure for aero-engines but typically the total advance at 3000 RPM for a four-stroke engine could be 30° to 40° before the piston reaches the top of the cylinder.
Some engines will run happily backwards at idle speeds, particularly two-stroke engines, and some will run at higher speeds but at much reduced power.
Creaking DoorWasn’t there some books that came out with photographs of Russian Naval Officers and one of them was identified as Crabb?
Blimey…a post about ‘Buster’ Crabb! Thank you sir! 🙂
I’ve got to say I’m always suspicious of ‘revelations’ that coincide with the publishing of a book or the showing of a TV documentary (and the making of money by somebody from the ‘success’ of either).
Of course it is very tempting to speculate about defection (or abduction) and a ‘new life’ as a Russian naval officer or (another story I’ve read) as a trainer of naval divers in East Germany but there are rather obvious problems with these versions.
Firstly, who is the body if it isn’t Crabb, and more importantly who is a planted body intended to deceive?
Surely if the Soviets wanted to hide the defection of Crabb a missing body is safer than risking a planted body being discovered as fake by the British.
Much has been made of the fact that Crabb’s ex-wife, girlfriend and former diving partner failed to identify the body as Crabb (after it had been in the sea for fourteen months) and that some were pressured by the British government into confirming it as Crabb despite this.
The conspiracy theorist would have us believe that the British government wanted to hide the ‘embarrassing’ defection of war-hero Crabb by saying the body was Crabb when it wasn’t. How would the British government have explained the embarrassment of a lunch meeting between Crabb and Khrushchev, televised for propaganda purposes, a few days, months or years after they confirmed Crabb was definitely the body found in the wetsuit?
Secondly, why no public information (or propaganda) about Crabb in the fifty years since he supposedly defected?
Thirdly, why do the only public accounts about Crabb to come from the former Soviet side both detail the circumstances surrounding his death?
Crabb would be about ninety-eight now, no piece of knowledge that he had in 1956 could be of any possible use to anybody in 2007 so there would be no point in concealing his defection now. Also there would surely have come a point in the last fifty years when all of the (limited) information Crabb could have divulged to the Soviets would be overshadowed by the propaganda value of such a high-profile defector.
To me, it just doesn’t stack up.
Sign In
